I know the word "worship" can have different connotations but it's generally used to denote sacrifice. I do not like using the word "worship" when referencing veneration of saints.
We should get back to using it this way more. It a proper usage of the word. We shouldn’t let the Prots diminishing of the word change our way of speaking
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad Agreed. Words have meaning. That's why there's such a striking difference between magisterial documents from a century ago and since then till now. Ambiguity is the devil's playground.
What an interesting debate. First, there is no such thing as a 'novus ordo' church. There is only 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church' Second, as regards canonisation of Saints - all of them - St Thomas Aquinas writes this: "Since the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error (Quodlib. IX, a. 16)."
You are correct that there is only one Catholic Church because the Novus Ordo Missae is a false church cooked up by enemies of the Church that thought they could ruin the Church with illicit liturgy and beliefs that went against traditional Divinely revealed Catholic truth. The Council rejected the Council of Trent and the Missal of Pope St. Pius V and gave us anti-pope Bergoglio, JP II, and Benedict XVI.
Is this correct, that there is a difference between "infallible" and "inerrant"? For instance, if I agree with Fr. Jean Colson, his thesis, the Beloved Disciple, the one who was at the Cross, the one who wrote 5 NT books, the one who was hosting the Blessed Virgin Mary, was NOT the Son of Zebedee, NOT one of the Twelve ... he was a disciple of a lesser order, a Cohen, not a guest but the host of the Last Supper ... 1) I am not in trouble with today's Martyrology reading, as both the Son of Zebedee and the Gospeller are in Heaven, I am relying on what's infallible when I honour both, simply not attributing inerrancy to the reading? 2) Or would stating they are not brothers according to the flesh being an attack on the infallibility of the reading? Sancti Jacobi Apostoli, qui exstitit beati Joannis _Evangelistae_ frater; et, prope festum Paschae ab Herode Agrippa decollatus, primus ex Apostolis coronam martyiii percepit. Ejus sacra ossa, ab Hierosolymis ad Hispanias hoc die translata, et in ultimis earum finibus apud Gallaeciam recondita, celeberrima illarum gentium veneratione, et frequenti Christianorum conctirsu, religionis et voti causa illuc adeuntium, pie coluntur. Father Colson considered he had detected variations in statements identifying the Gospeller with the other son of Zebedee, for instance no person remaining in Asia Minor in the first two centuries to mature age makes such an identification explicitly, the first one who makes them left Asia Minor at age 16, St. Irenaeus, and Fr. Colson considered it possible that he had made a confusion between two different John, and left too young to get the misunderstaning corrected. Then his prestige, very rightful, on other matters, led to a very large acceptation of his view.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad Whether or not Francis is pope, he certainly is a mockery of the papacy. He is considered by many Catholics as the very successful International Marketing Director of Sedevacantism.
False dichotomy. To say someone is not a Big S Saint does not mean that they are in hell. It means merely they are not worthy of the veneration due to Big S Saints, whose lives displayed heroic virtue. Paul VI was a bad pope and had many flaws and vices. It doesn't mean he's in hell, but it does mean he's not a S Saint, not worth of the veneration and emulation
Yes, it doesn’t mean that one is in hell. The point was that one could be, which is a ridiculous notion if the church has declared one a saint. If the Church says that Paul VI is a Saint, then he is, and that his actions during his life are of heroic virtue. This is one way we know that these men are not true popes.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad no true saints must exhibit heroic virtue or heroic repentance and penance. Paul VI didn't have either. Any devil's afvocate position would have picked up multiple red flags barring ordination. If you look at past theologians who say canonizations are infallible, if they give a defense, it's always devil's advocate meticulously scrutinizing their lives and a very high bar for miracles. Paul VI fails both of these miserably. Other modern "saints" do too.
It is not the “devils advocate” that confirms the canonization as Infallible, the the judgement of the Pope to declare to the universal church this person is worthy of veneration. If Francis is a true Pope that Paul VI is a true saint
The intense scrutiny of his life is given as a reason why it is infallible, for several theologians. You might be right but it's cruel and wrong to say someone is a big H Heretic and outside the Church if they deny canonization infallibility. Plus it's an attack on my Reason to insist Paul VI is a Saint, when his life was clearly not heroic in virtue.
@philc6068 I didn’t say one is a big H heretic for such a reason. They are in error. It could be a heretical take but I am not wiling to say that (cause I am unsure if it falls into such a category)
